Honesty is out of fashion
Jan. 24th, 2004 02:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
incandescensLib Dem MP Jenny Tonge states that she understands the "desperation" that motivates Palestinian suicide bombers, and that "I do not condone suicide bombers," she told Sky Television. "But I do understand why people out there become suicide bombers -- it is out of desperation. If I was in their situation...I might just think about it myself."
She's been sacked.
George Bush and Tony Blair, despite the fact we now know that the whole WMDs in Iraq business was a fabricated shitheap of lies, are both still leading their countries.
The theorem is left as an exercise to the interested reader.
She's been sacked.
George Bush and Tony Blair, despite the fact we now know that the whole WMDs in Iraq business was a fabricated shitheap of lies, are both still leading their countries.
The theorem is left as an exercise to the interested reader.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 03:10 am (UTC)And, of course, the fact that both sides of the party lines have been saying for years Hussein was working on WMD means nothing to you, does it? That pretty much everyone acknowledged that Iraq was a serious, growing threat to the international community? That the UN saw fit to actually impose sanctions on Iraq (that both the French and Germans, it comes to light, were flagrantly disregarding and the UN oil-for-palaces program was in a fine motion ...)
And, of course, the fact that WMD were never specifically put forward as the central reason for the Invasion and democratization of Iraq, or even one of the main motivations, just one of the central talking points -- primarily by those who opposed the action.
And there's the fact that sympathizing with suicide bombers is not really a fine thing to do in a country whose fighting men and women are currently being killed by same ... in fact, it looks both damned insensitive and borderline insipidly stupid, politically.
But, hey, let's get right to the meat of the issue -- the reason Lib Dem MP Jenny Tongue is not in their position, or one like it, is because of men like George W Bush and Tony Blair, who saw a reason to stabilize a dangerous region, apply pressure to dangerous men, and take responsibility for improving the lot of 12 million people in Iraq to start, and ultimately many millions more in the Middle Eastern region, as democracy and stabilization spread.
Not that any of us would want that. Let the terrorist camps, the dangerous distributed technology of mass destruction, the hatred of the West (and of you, specifically, you and willful women like you who don't bow in your submissive place before Allah), the isolation, poverty, and broken societies, the mass graves -- fuck it, let's just let the little brown people just eat shit, right? Because they're just not worth fighting and dying for, right?
Right.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 05:55 am (UTC)Or merely obnoxious of you. Like trolling in another's personal LJs as you have done here.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 06:32 am (UTC)And you assume that I'm trolling, which implies I don't actually believe what I'm saying, which would be dead wrong. And when did insisting on truth in factual statement and having convictions that differ from the original poster become "trolling?"
Oh, wait, that'd be when you don't have an actual argument to present and just want to lessen anothers' points without anything substantiative. Yes, I've seen that tactic before.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:14 am (UTC)As for the other, feel free to expand upon my ignorance at your leisure. However, as a guest in her virtual home, you might do the *owner of this LJ* the courtesy of acknowledging she is an intelligent person who is aware of the facts and capable of arriving at her opinions without your instruction.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 07:24 pm (UTC)The Hutton report was very interesting in its dissection of that one. I look forward to reading the final version next week.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:03 pm (UTC)I maintain that if you can't hide something even so big as a tractor-trailor full of "stuff" in a country the size of California, that won't be found for a couple years -- you're not really trying. And for all that Hussein was, you can add "desperately driven" to the list.
Given that to have WMD ready to go in 45min, all you need are a few oil drums full of naughty drippies and some empty warheads ... it doesn't take much.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-25 04:47 am (UTC)We're all in the same boat in that respect, yet people both for and against appear to derive a measure of comfort from fixating on one rationale or another.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 10:58 pm (UTC)Did anyone not stop reading this bit of pompous cack about this point? Why not just say "I'm not here to convince anyone of anything; I just like to watch my finger type words" and move on?
-R
no subject
Date: 2004-01-25 12:38 am (UTC)Tell you what, you can sit back and enjoy your freedom to believe as you like, write what you like, and be as offensive as you like while we go protect your ability to do so, by and large, is that what you'd like? I mean, we can play it that way, but ...
Continental Europe is about to face a rising tide of terrorist activity, no matter what. The US has proven too hard a nut to crack (and hasn't shown more than a few fractures, overall), so its off to softer targets. And we've already seen they don't really care much about biting the hands that feed them.
We'll just have to see what brews, won't we?
no subject
Date: 2004-01-25 02:20 am (UTC)You don't know what I do or do not want to hear.
You don't know where I live. (Clearly.)
And so and so forth. Very superior, and may I say, fairly xenophobic, but not really grounded in any desire or effort to understand anybody else or where they're coming from. And this just may be why you were accused of trolling, you know?
-R
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 06:55 am (UTC)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43180-2004Jan23.html?nav=hptop_tb
March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
The US certainly does seem to be spreading stability : Another senior official said the concerns over a possible civil war are "broadly held within the government," including by regional experts at the State Department and National Security Council.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001841528_cia22.html
And spreading democracy as well: To keep a lid on the violence, a new secret police force is being planned by the CIA. It will draw upon feared Mukhabarat (intelligence) operatives, the very ones who bolstered Saddam Hussein’s thuggish regime. "They’re clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam," said Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorism.
http://antiwar.com/orig/hunsinger.php?articleid=1768
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 08:09 pm (UTC)Civil war? Of course its a bloody thought in government circles ... Iraq is very highly charged tribal politics, with both non-Sunni regions getting the big dick-shaft from Hussein over the past couple decades, and charged over again with mullahs who see a happy opportunity to turn a potential ballanced democracy into a theocratic Muslim theocracy; "tyrany of the masses" is still tyranny. My guess is Sistani's just playing hardball and knows very well that a Sunni-led direct democracy would end up in a situation worse than Hussein's ever did -- because that'd lead directly to a US withdrawal of a lot of certain kinds of support. Not good for anyone. He wants assurances that he and his'll be looked after. Fine.
[drily] Yes, an article from AntiWar.org is well-known for its unbiased language and broad interpretation. That's rotten bait not even a starving barracuda'll rise to.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 11:38 pm (UTC)Q: You came away from the hunt that you have done believing that they did not have any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the country?
A: "That is correct."
Q. Is that from the interviews and documentation?
A. "Well the interviews, the documentation, and the physical evidence of looking at, as hard as it was because they were dealing with looted sites, but you just could not find any physical evidence that supported a larger program."
Q: Do you think they destroyed it?
A: "No, I don't think they existed."
Q. Even though in the mid-1980s people said they used it on Halabja?
A. "They had stockpiles, they fought the Iranians with it, and they certainly did use it on the Kurds. But what everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s."
Q. What about the nuclear program?
A. "The nuclear program was as we said in the interim report, I think that will be a final conclusion. There had been some restart of activities, but they were rudimentary.
"It really wasn't dormant because there were a few little things going on, but it had not resumed in anything meaningful."
You can parrot the chickenbloggers' schtick about "wanting a better Iraq" and "bringing peace to the Middle East" all you want, but for the rest of us, declaring a preemptive and unprovoked war requires a more imminent and real threat. Glad you find the Administration's Kool-Aid to your liking though.
Apologies, incandescens. I know he's trolling and I won't feed him again, but I just couldn't let his BS slide.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-25 12:53 am (UTC)David Kay ceased being an impartial observer years ago, though. Interviews with him have become articles of faith for the Left. Even when he contradicts what he's said in the past. So either he was lying then, or lying now.
There's a lot of "I think" in that interview. Not a lot of "here's what I saw," and he hurries to soften the fact that what he saw was a lot of looted sites when he saw anything at all. His report says one thing, his interviews draw inferrences that don't make sense given the reports. I suppose if it makes you feel good to think so, you'll back it.
Note: Meaningful or not, any nuclear research in Iraq is a violation of the long-standing UN sanctions. Any nation involved in facilitating those researchers, materially or with funds, are in breech of UN sanctions. Not that the UN intended to do anything about that, comment on it, or be a real player in looking after the sanctity and honour of their organization.
"Chickenblogger." Is that what you call someone not so wrapped up in ridiculous clap-trap that they actually care about whether others beyond their yard are free and living in safety? I suppose I'll wear it proud, then.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 03:19 am (UTC)The topic of your post has a highly 18th century quality about it.
"honesty is out of fashion" and "the world turned upside down"
They are remarkably similar.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 03:27 am (UTC)I know that the Bush groupies on the Supreme Court will probably come up with some specious reason to throw out the majority of the votes again this fall, but I'm still looking forward to November. Voting against the Liar-In-Chief and his entourage will be the most satisfying political action of my life.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-24 01:22 pm (UTC)At least B&B didn't have their folks fabricate WMDs or leftovers from WMDs as proof that they were right. Let us be gratful for that.